• ohulancutash@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because it only makes sense because employers can’t be trusted to hire equitably. It is a thumb on the scales, and so is an injust act, but is currently necessary due to bad hiring practices.

      Hopefully we can grow out of this and employers will just hire the best people for the job, regardless of personal circumstance.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        You seem to think DEI is when employers have to meet a diversity quota, when in reality, it upholds laws stating employers can’t make any hiring decisions based on race or any other such demographic.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh I sure do look forward to the well-reasoned and deeply nuanced explanation you’re certain to get in response to that question.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s civil which was nice, but it’s also an argument that is (charitably) extremely poorly thought through. It’s just an appeal towards free-market regulation, which in an ideal world does work great but we have hundreds of years history (and the fact that I do not have a pet dragon) that establishes this is not an ideal world and it would not in fact work great.

          It’s a good, optimistic, hope-for-the-future thought yes - but they’re using that to justify badmouthing DEI policies which is both incredibly counterproductive and pretty suspect.